Related Rates Question: Point Movement on x-axis and Graph Curve

  • Thread starter Thread starter danago
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Related rates
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a related rates problem involving a point moving along the x-axis and a point moving along the curve of the graph defined by y=x². The original poster explores the relationship between the distances and rates of change of these points as they move, questioning the correctness of their approach.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the rate at which the point on the graph moves away from the origin using Pythagorean theorem and implicit differentiation. Some participants suggest re-evaluating the approach to solving the differential equation, while others affirm the validity of the original poster's method.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback on the original poster's calculations and reasoning. There is a mix of suggestions for alternative approaches and affirmations of the correctness of the original work, indicating a productive exchange of ideas without a clear consensus on the best method.

Contextual Notes

Participants note varying levels of calculus education, with some referencing high school calculus and others mentioning different course structures. This context may influence the understanding and approaches to the problem.

danago
Gold Member
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
4
Consider the graph of y=x2. A point is moving along the x-axis in such a way, that its speed is proportional to its distance from the origin. At the same time, a point is moving along the curve of the graph, which always has the same x-value as the point moving along the x-axis. At what rate is the point on the graph moving away from the origin?

At any time, the horizontal distance of the point is 'x' units, and the vertical distance is 'x2' units. By using pythagoras' theorem, i can show that the distance from the origin is thus given by:

[tex] D = \sqrt {x^2 + x^4 } [/tex]

Now, since the point moving along the x-axis has a speed proportional to its horizontal distance, i can say that:

[tex] \frac{{dx}}{{dt}} \propto x\therefore\frac{{dx}}{{dt}} = kx[/tex]

Where 'k' is some constant.

Since both 'D' and 'x' are functions of time, i differentiate implicitly with respect to time, to get:

[tex] \frac{{dD}}{{dt}} = \frac{{kx^2 + 2kx^4 }}{{\sqrt {x^2 + x^4 } }}[/tex]

Therefore, for any given distance of the first point from the origin, the second point, moving along the curve, has a speed of [itex] \frac{{kx^2 + 2kx^4 }}{{\sqrt {x^2 + x^4 } }}[/itex] relative to the origin.


I wasnt 100% sure if i did it correctly. If anybody would be able to double check my working, that would be great.

Thanks,
Dan.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, so dx/dt=kx. Then dx/x=k*dt. Solve that ode and then rethink the problem. You are currently a ways off from a correct solution.
 
Alright. Solving that i get:

[tex] x = e^{kt + c} = x_0 e^{kt} [/tex]

Where x0=ec which is equal to the initial horizontal displacement?

Do i then just substitute that value of x into the equation i came up with in my first post?
 
Calc 1 or 2? I did related rates in Calc 1 but I didn't do a problem anything close to that ...
 
Well its highscool calc. I am from West Australia, and all we can study is "calculus". there's no calc 1 or calc 2.
 
I am confused by Dick's response. You are given dx/dt and asked to find dD/dt. You can do that using the chain rule. I see no reason to solve for x as a function of t and then D as a function of t.
What you did looks perfectly good to me.

Even simpler, though, would be to use D2= x2+ x4 so that 2D dD/dt= (2x +4x3)(kx) Then
[tex]\frac{dD}{dt}= \frac{kx^2+ 2kx^4}{D}[/tex]
which is exactly what you have.

Perhaps Dick is thinking you must find the rate of change of D in terms of t only. In that case, you can take the x(t)= x0ekt and substitute that into the answer you originally got. That would be exactly the same as substituting it into the distance function and differentiating that.
 
Halls is quite correct, finding an explicit function of t is completely unnecessary. Sorry not to recognize an already correct solution.
 
Ahhh i was wondering where you were going with that. No harm done though, all with good intentions :smile: Thanks for the help guys!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K